Why the James of Gal 1:19 is the Pillar James son of Zebedee

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Post Reply
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Why the James of Gal 1:19 is the Pillar James son of Zebedee

Post by Giuseppe »

Best answer: because he was called in Gal 1:19 as ''Brother of the Lord''.
The tradition of the martyrdom of James son of Zebedee is very ancient, being already found in Mark:


"We can," they answered. Jesus said to them, "You will drink the cup I drink and be baptized with the baptism I am baptized with

(Mark 10:39)


So Prosper Alfaric:

In the opinion of the Apostle, who wants to know only the crucified Christ, no Christian deserves to be called his "brother" more than he who is thus bound to his Passion.

(Le Jésus de Paul, p. 262)

Now, Paul surely didn't know that James (of Gal 1:19) was persecuted to death, since he met him alive. Therefore Paul couldn't consider him a spiritual ''Brother of Lord'' in a sense that would have put him in a different place from other mere ''brothers''. Unless, by the time when Paul was writing Galatians, the James by him met the first time in Jerusalem (and mentioned in Gal 1:19), was already persecuted to death. Deserving so the spiritual and elitist title of ''Brother of the Lord'' before all the Christians of the time.

But Hegesippus, who invented the legend of the martyrdom of James ''the Brother of Jesus'', had precisely this in view: to show that only a martyr could be also a carnal brother of Jesus.

So ''brothers of Lord'' = all the Christian martyrs.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
User avatar
Joseph D. L.
Posts: 1405
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2017 2:10 am

Re: Why the James of Gal 1:19 is the Pillar James son of Zebedee

Post by Joseph D. L. »

You're neglecting that both James and John are commanded to drink from the same cup as Christ in Mark 10:35-45, and Matthew 20:20-28. But Paul no where mentions that James or John are in fact dead. Why is it is impossible for James in chapter one of Galatians to be the same James in chapter two? And which of these James' is in 1 Corinthians , chapter fifteen? And this still leaves the matter of John's martyrdom unresolved.
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Why the James of Gal 1:19 is the Pillar James son of Zebedee

Post by Giuseppe »

Joseph D. L. wrote: Fri Mar 16, 2018 1:22 am You're neglecting that both James and John are commanded to drink from the same cup as Christ
Why not? Under the my hypothesis, James and John, the Pillars, were both martyrs. At least James was already a martyr by the time Paul wrote to Galatians.
But Paul no where mentions that James or John are in fact dead.
True. But in the other only verse where he mentions the ''brothers of the Lord'', the his sense may be easily explained by the hypothesis that ''brothers of the Lord'' = Christian martyrs:

Don't we have the right to take a believing wife along with us, as do the other apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas?

Note the crescendo: if even who is a voyager (the apostles), if even who is dead (''the brother of the Lord'') , has a wife, if even Cephas (the founder of the cult), then why I not?
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
User avatar
Joseph D. L.
Posts: 1405
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2017 2:10 am

Re: Why the James of Gal 1:19 is the Pillar James son of Zebedee

Post by Joseph D. L. »

Giuseppe wrote: Fri Mar 16, 2018 1:42 am Why not? Under the my hypothesis, James and John, the Pillars, were both martyrs. At least James was already a martyr by the time Paul wrote to Galatians.
This doesn't follow. If James and John in chapter two are the brothers Zebedee, then why (how?) is Paul speaking of them as if they are still alive? You can say that they were martyred after Paul had composed Galatians, but not before.

I can't help but feel that you are basing the martyrdom of James on Josephus. You are only confusing your arguments if so. Just forget Josephus even exists.

When 'James' and 'John' were killed is not known because the sources stem from differing traditions. One places them being killed by Trajan during Kitos; the other by Hadrian after bar Kochba. Galatians was itself written ca. 135-140, and makes mention of two specific timeframes: the three years after Paul's initial revelation, then fourteen years after this, giving us seventeen years to work with.
True. But in the other only verse where he mentions the ''brothers of the Lord'', the his sense may be easily explained by the hypothesis that ''brothers of the Lord'' = Christian martyrs:

Don't we have the right to take a believing wife along with us, as do the other apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas?

Note the crescendo: if even who is a voyager (the apostles), if even who is dead (''the brother of the Lord'') , has a wife, if even Cephas (the founder of the cult), then why I not?
You're projecting your own preference into the text. It reads "... as do the other apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas?"

"Do, in this instance, is present tense, meaning that those of whom it is referring to are still alive.

The brothers of the Lord refers to those who are baptized in Christ, as in Rom 6:1-11. Observe:

What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin that grace may abound? By no means! How can we who died to sin still live in it? Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life. For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we shall certainly be united with him in a resurrection like his. We know that our old self was crucified with him in order that the body of sin might be brought to nothing, so that we would no longer be enslaved to sin. For one who has died has been set free from sin. Now if we have died with Christ, we believe that we will also live with him. We know that Christ, being raised from the dead, will never die again; death no longer has dominion over him. For the death he died he died to sin, once for all, but the life he lives he lives to God. So you also must consider yourselves dead to sin and alive to God in Christ Jesus.

So those who are brothers of the Lord, do undergo a figurative death and resurrection, and are not necessarily martyred.
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Why the James of Gal 1:19 is the Pillar James son of Zebedee

Post by Giuseppe »

you are correct.

But even if the my implication is wrong, I think that there is something of true in the quote of Alfaric:

In the opinion of the Apostle, who wants to know only the crucified Christ, no Christian deserves to be called his "brother" more than he who is thus bound to his Passion.

So there is no way to deny that the James of Gal 1:19 satisfies this requisite to be called ''the Brother of the Lord''.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
User avatar
toejam
Posts: 754
Joined: Sun Apr 06, 2014 1:35 am
Location: Brisbane, Australia

Re: Why the James of Gal 1:19 is the Pillar James son of Zebedee

Post by toejam »

Wouldn't it have been simpler for Paul to identify this James to be the son of Zebedee by saying: "I saw no one else except James son of Zebedee", or "James, another of the Lord's twelve", or "James Boanerges", or "James the pillar", etc.?

If Paul had wanted this James to be understood in the Romans 6 / 'baptised brethren' sense, then Paul would have been better to say "τῶν ἀδελφῶν ἐν Κυρίῳ" ("one of the brothers in the Lord") as he does when describing the generic "brethren" in Philippians 1:14, or perhaps "ὁ ἀδελφὸς" ("our brother") as he does for Timothy in Philemon 1:1, or perhaps simply "Ἰάκωβον ἀδελφὸν" ("James, a brother" or "brother James"). Instead, Paul uses the rather specific "τὸν ἀδελφὸν τοῦ κυρίου" ("the brother of the Lord").

τὸν implies a specificity - Just like in: "Ἀνδρέαν τὸν ἀδελφὸν Σίμωνος" ("Andrew the brother of Simon") or "Ἰωάννην τὸν βαπτιστήν" ("John the Baptist"), etc.

Another potential stumbling block is the regularly sniffed reverse association - that James the son of Zebedee was a later rewrite over James the brother...
My study list: https://www.facebook.com/notes/scott-bignell/judeo-christian-origins-bibliography/851830651507208
User avatar
Joseph D. L.
Posts: 1405
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2017 2:10 am

Re: Why the James of Gal 1:19 is the Pillar James son of Zebedee

Post by Joseph D. L. »

I'm setting the brothers Zebedee distinction after Paul, as a way to differentiate between two traditions. That also includes the title of Boanerges. Saying that Paul would have said this or that seems rather meaningless to me.

Essentially I am arguing against the idea that Paul was aware of the death of James, while those who are called "brothers of the Lord" is not referring to martyrs.

I'm also distinguishing between "brothers of the Lord" (generic) and "brother of the Lord (specific), as I hold that the Ebionites and Nazarenes (the "men from James") saw John as the Christ, with his brother James as his second in command, so to speak.
User avatar
Joseph D. L.
Posts: 1405
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2017 2:10 am

Re: Why the James of Gal 1:19 is the Pillar James son of Zebedee

Post by Joseph D. L. »

Giuseppe wrote: Sat Mar 17, 2018 11:25 am
But even if the my implication is wrong, I think that there is something of true in the quote of Alfaric:

In the opinion of the Apostle, who wants to know only the crucified Christ, no Christian deserves to be called his "brother" more than he who is thus bound to his Passion.

So there is no way to deny that the James of Gal 1:19 satisfies this requisite to be called ''the Brother of the Lord''.
But the baptism was an emulation of the passion, death and resurrection. Not actual.
Post Reply